Friday, December 24, 2010

The single biggest driver in human evolution was the challenge of matching the demands and capacities of our out-sized brain against the relative limitations of a weak physique. When researching the ‘whims of mother nature’, nothing is arbitrary. Sure, there are variances and distributions, but you can be sure that somewhere in the mix resides an objective mean – defining form and substance with a purpose.

Hair, like skin, is part of our genetically malleable, adaptable, outer layer, protecting us from the elements, the heat, cold, wetness, dryness, and utilizing the visible and not-so-visible light (energy) spectrum. Early primates and proto-humans had straight hair, which was an asset in low exertion foraging environs of ranging temperature, but not conducive to extending our physical endurance in the competition for food and survival, especially in mid-day Africa. Tightly coiled, moisture resistant head-hair created an enhanced barrier to ultra-violet (UV) radiation by turning many times on itself. This configuration also allows the release of perspiration droplets into a more optimal evaporative state whereby the droplets capture the heat of air moving around the coils before the perspiration rolls off and evaporates said heat away from the body. Presto! Cool scalp, cool brain, and greater endurance.

Conversely, straight hair was a liability, as it is more moisture absorbent, becoming heavy and causing it to stick to adjacent hair shafts and the scalp, effectively blocking the airflow required for heat exchange and dissipation. The straight hair of those precursors to modern humans would have made them less able to exert themselves for survival and advancement.

So with all due respect to Chris Rock, there is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ hair. Curly, kinky, or nappy hair adaptation meant survival and prosperity as a species, in the birthplace of humanity. Moreover, just as coiled hair and pigmented skin conveyed advantage in Africa, straight hair, and light skin adaptation did the same moving north, in logical ways and for discernable reasons (more on this later). And for the record, Don Imus (here) is a true moron. The Rutgers ladies (pictured) are infinitely more appealing than his sorry behind.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

While asking the question ‘Why are White People White?’ (here), I touched on that black people are black by the same mechanism. However, my explanation was too brief, and the question deserves its own full answer. Keep in mind this evolutionary cheat-sheet: first, there was panting and hairiness, and then came limited sweating and hairiness, and now we have full-body sweating and no hair (little hair).

To begin, earlier hairy primates, or proto-humans, living in Africa were less efficient at dissipating the body heat that resulted from strenuous exertion (hunting, gathering, and avoiding predators). Panting is the way most mammals cool themselves, rather than through sweating. As an evolutionary alternative, sweat glands appeared first over hairy bodies and then over less-hairy bodies, allowing for rapid cooling and quick evaporation. Evaporative cooling pulls heat away, countering the insulating effect, whereby the moisture stays on the skin, trapped by hair, and increasing in temperature from both the sun and internal exertion.

Indeed, sweat glands were an improvement over panting, allowing for greater exertion, but there was another hurdle. Full-body hair on proto humans grew out of ‘white (non-pigmented) skin’ underneath, in combination to regulate Vitamin D(3) production, for bone and reproductive health. Without the hair to block the sun, the skin had to take on this critical task by itself, via melanin production, thereby making the evolutionary case from fully covered, dark haired, white-skinned, proto-humans into hair-less dark-skinned humanoid descendants. Viola, black people!

It was relentless large brain demands (thinking) of proto-humans that drove body evolution to change and advance. Hairlessness, sweat glands, and dark-skin proved a potent combination in response, allowing humans to run greater distances, fight longer fights, dehydrate at a slower pace, and recover normal body temperature more quickly. Humanoids quickly became formidable foes, as their body capabilities ‘caught up to’ their brainy demands.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Being black, I scarcely wondered why I was black, but I did often wonder why white people were white. I never believed in the ‘God wanted it that way’ answer. It seems very natural that whites and blacks would harbor the same question, however taboo it is to toss it into conversation. Indeed, science has provided us with an answer, but I hardly see it in print for non-scientists.

The scientific record shows relatively hair-less humans evolving from hairy primates in Africa. At the time when hairy proto-humans ‘loss’ their hair and developed sweat glands for cooling their big brains, they also needed to adapt their production and regulation of the pro-steroid hormone, Vitamin D(3), which was critical to healthy bones and reproduction. The result was an adaptive higher level of melanin in the skin, turning it dark. Viola, healthy dark-skin humans to populate the world!

As early Africans migrated north to Eurasia, with its lessened sun intensity, dark skin posed a problem. Vitamin D(3) fell to unhealthy levels, except that built-in genetically adaptive skin traits quickly kicked-in to lightened skin responsible for producing the required D(3). The farther north they ventured the lighter the skin needed to be to absorb the right amount of sun. It really is that simple. There is a great book that explains all of this in detail, written by recognized skin authority, Nina Jablonski PhD., called “Skin: A Natural History” (here).

So there it is - latitude (north/south position) on the globe pretty much dictates skin color (here). There are a few exceptions to this rule, associated with levels of Vitamin D in the diet. By example, the Inuits (indigenous Arctic people) are relatively darker, even at such a high latitude, because of oily-fish diets laden with Vitamin D(3). Aborigines in continental Australia, arriving via the ‘intercoastal migration’, maintained their melanin through similar fish-rich diets, on the coast, coupled with the fierce demands of an intense interior desert sun.

As a side bar, and from a Vitamin D(3) healthiness perspective, the continental US is (on average) too sunny for most fair whites, and not sunny enough for most brown-skin blacks. Everyone needs Vitamin D management for good health.

Monday, December 20, 2010

It took them long enough, but Google, who owns blog publishing service Blogger, finally canceled the hate-filled ranting at the blog, WhyBlacksSuck. blogspot.com. The blog owner (under INDRA MAGHAVAN) tried to say that his site was not a hate site, but from his name down to his postings the real story was the opposite. Over the past six months, the blogger had begun to run out of hate-gas, but the site needed a hard ending nonetheless. It was last cached on Dec. 14, 2010.

I complained to Blogger regularly, once I became familiar. I also realized that he was pointing his twisted brethren to this blog, perhaps because I ‘air out the laundry’, at times. To be clear, I respect and depend upon protected speech, via the First Amendment; however, if Google wants any resemblance of good citizenship they sure-as-hell had better bring their hammer down on people who use hate-speech to incite violence on others, regardless of their affinities.

I see plenty of blog owners who write just this side of the hate-line, claiming they are simply expressing their opinions. However, when you read the vitriol-laced carnage fantasies that makes it into the comments, you understand better the relationship between the spark and fire. Absolving one’s blogging-self of hate comments, moderated or not, under some twisted sense of the First Amendment is nothing but crap.

All groups have their burdens, and blogs are powerful vehicles for openness and honesty pertaining to such. However, Why Blacks Suck was just hate that earned its participants an over-due exit to the internet bottoms.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

The New York Times has put up a map tool linked to US Census data, cutting across race, education, income, and housing. Interesting tool for setting a context for looking at where this country has been, is presently, and where it seems to be going. Check it out (here).

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Some events simply demand that you stop, take notice, and give credit where it is due. The woman to the right side of the picture probably saved this police officer’s life (video). The officer’s roadside battle with his assailant was not going too well before the passing woman decided that he could ‘use a hand’.

The courageous Samaritan’s well-timed licks upside the old geezer’s head were just what the officer needed to regain control of the potential deadly situation. The woman said everybody else was just passing the fight by, but she couldn’t. Give that woman the key to Dayton, and a bravery commendation. She is a hero!

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The most powerful control tool of a parent, teacher, employer, or government, is the willingness to encourage others to believe you can only tell them the truth, when, in fact, your charter compels you to lie. This is the conundrum the founding fathers were addressing when they wrote the first amendment to the US Constitution, regarding freedom of religion, press, and expression.

As children, we are taught to believe the words of the police, and other authority figures. However, police officers are trained to lie, as part of their job. Of course, there are specific instances where they may not lie, but those are exceptional. We are purposely misled into believing that they cannot lie, but that itself is a lie - perhaps it is the biggest of lies.

When you hear an authority append “in the interest of National Security” to something they are saying, it really means that the person is not telling you the truth, and/or is telling an outright lie, allegedly for your safety and well being, in someone’s authoritarian opinion. Presidents, senators, and congressman routinely lie, the least of which is about dalliances with interns. Governments lie to each other all the time, and in turn they must lie to their own people to protect these earlier lies – again, under the cloak of protecting national security.

The mechanism, in this country, which keeps the lies from completely spinning out of control, leading to chaos and anarchy, is freedom of the press. When people inside of government (typically) see the lies mounting to the point where they can no longer sleep or eat or look their families straight in the face, they have somewhere to go, to leak, where the truth can still mean something – the press.

Without the press, or the ability for all citizens to speak freely, all freedom is eventually lost. It is not that Wikileaks, or its founder, is perfect or always right; they are not. However, the protection afforded all of us by the Constitution is critically dependent upon the idea that those who lie, as a matter of course, do so with knowledge that their lies and impacts may ultimately come to light as such. Liars beware!

Saturday, December 04, 2010

I have been to plenty of White funerals, but Black funerals are in a class of their own. You know something wild is going to happen – but like “Death at a Funeral” (2010), you don’t know what. The question today is why, during the ‘audience tribute’ portion of the service, somebody must always dig up an event about the deceased, or an audience member, that makes everyone squirm and try to hide inside their programs?

When Mr. or Ms. ’Bigmouth’ first approaches the microphone, you can hear knowing people mumble a desperate prayer of, “Oh Lord please…” Others look away hoping to become invisible, just like in school when the teacher wanted someone to lead the pledge of allegiance. Everyone knows that the pastor’s two-minute limit is useless to stop what is coming next.

The story told is usually something like, ‘so-and-so (the deceased) and I were out one Saturday night, you know, sowing some wild oats, when we met these ‘fine’ girls. After the po-lice showed up and they were going to arrest us except blah, blah, blah! Man, I am going to miss so-and-so, and don’t think he didn’t accept Christ as his savior, because I was right there when he did! And y’all know I don’t lie!"

Relief only comes when the last person has spoken. The minister gets things back on track by segueing any notion that the person was ‘saved’ into their passport through the ‘pearly gates’. On the positive side, you always come away knowing the deceased was a real person rather than just the sum of the one-sided good stuff people usually present. Everyone should attend at least one 'real' Black funeral.

Monday, November 29, 2010

I was leaving Trader Joe’s the other morning at the same time as an obese White family. After loading the food in the back of the van, the woman removed what looked like a can of Pringle's potato chips, opened it, and handed the full container to the seated child. I have seen Black women do exactly the same thing. This scenario had me curious to the intersection of obesity and perception, and specifically that Blacks and Whites perceive fatness differently, even as they pursue it with the same behavior.

If I was to venture a guess, the White woman surveyed about her weight would snarl ‘yes, I’m fat and it’s none of your freakin’ business’. A Black woman, alternately, might say that she is ‘big-boned’ and her weight is normal for her – and then say it is none of your freakin’ business. But, in a way, it is all of our business. More than seventy-percent of America is overweight and obesity is literally killing our health care system, and us along with it.

I found a study (here) that measures the difference in weight perception across sex and race. The research proves perception differences are significant. Blacks and Latinos see fat differently than Whites, but the researchers do not postulate why. It would not be PC. So, I will take a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess). Black Americans, with the lingering influence of their geographically challenged West African location of ethnic origin, continue to seek fat storage as a positive indicator of health and longevity against the historical threat of famine. Simply put, fat black women look and feel like better mates under this view, and the behavior of Black men backs this up (and vice versa). Of course, Black folks like sitting on their butts, in front of HDTV flat-screens, just as much as White folks, so perception is just one part of the influence.

White men and women are less influenced by famine perspectives and seek slimness for the more empirically realized longevity and health benefits, resulting from stable agricultural societies (see Fertile Crescent). Hence, the obese White woman with the Pringles is more likely to defend herself and her behavior purely with attitude, and not argument.

Other thoughts on the subject? Remember, these are musings. Rubber bullets please.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

A recent commenter on this blog suggested that the blue-eyed Black boy, in an earlier post, may present Waardenburg Syndrome, a rare autosomal genetic disorder that has possible bright blue eyes as one of its qualifying criteria, along with possible deafness (common). Actually, the cause of the blue eyes is a form of albinism that may include patches of non-pigmented skin or forehead hair, regardless of ethnicity.

There are four types of Waardenburg Syndrome, with a mix of possible characteristics as the determinant. Medical challenges increase with type. The boy in the picture is displaying two major symptoms of type 1, as does the previous boy (perhaps) (here); bright blue eyes and dystopia canthorum, a condition where the inner corners of the eyes are set more widely apart, but with normally distanced eyes.

Waardenburg occurs once in every 42,000 births, and is a deficiency inherited from a single parent, who may or may not display similar characteristics. Regarding the eye, color abnormalities come in three forms; heterochromia (multiple colors), bilateral isohypochromia (pale blue eyes), or fundus (reflective) pigmentary alterations (spottiness).

Monday, November 22, 2010

I had to fly to Chicago for a meeting last week, and as luck would have it, I was singled out for a full security going-over, courtesy of Oakland TSA officials. With this selection, I had the choice of the default full-body scan or the alternative ‘pat-down’. Of course, all the propaganda I had read and heard said that the body scan delivers a low level of radiation and is entirely safe. But, I also witnessed the pilots throwing fits over these things, along with the feel-my-crotch pat-down back-up. So what to do?

Although I opted for the scan, I wondered, as I stood there getting zapped, if I need to up my daily dose of Vitamin D, to give my body some extra cancer fighting moxie, in response. Well, the answer I came up with in my uninformed mind was wrong – after reading the article I have attached (here). I now think these machines could be very dangerous and they should be avoided.

Frankly, I would prefer stripping down to my underwear for a visual inspection, rather than getting irradiated or molested. I think some intrepid fashionista should come up with security underwear that is comfortable to fly in, not too revealing in a same sex security area, but also security-friendly. Until then, I will opt for the grope and avoid those questionable, allegedly safe, surface radiation gizmos. I suggest y’all do the same. Happy Thanksgiving!

P.S. I chose this particular scanner image because the other images I found were so so unappetizing, equally pornographic, and we should know what those TSA guys are seeing, or not.

7/20/2011 UPDATE: TSA has begun implementing a software update that shows agents a generic picture of subject passengers, including any suspicious anomalies. Note that this change does not mitigate the health and safety concerns of the scanners.

1/26/2013 UPDATE: TSA announced (here) that it will eliminate use of the at-issue Rapiscan machines, replacing them, by June, with machines using ATR (Automated Target Recognition) software.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

In 1961, John F. Kennedy boldly declared that the United States would put a man on the moon in the next decade. The US poured $170 billion (in 2005 dollars) into a project that delivered success in the NASA moon landing and safe return in 1969. In contrast, Richard Nixon declared ‘war’ on cancer with the National Cancer Act in 1971 with the goal of a cure by 1976, but after some 40 years and $200 billion spent, we can safely say that cancer has kicked our collective butts a distance equal to that traveled by Apollo 11– nearly one-half million miles.

This year, cancer is slated to surpass cardiovascular disease as the country’s leading killer. In fact, since Nixon’s pronouncement, cardiovascular related mortality has fallen 70% against a drop of just over 7% for cancer deaths. To be sure, people are living better with cancer than earlier times, but they ultimately die of it in disappointing numbers, nonetheless. Even the reported progress, in terms of a cure, is a bit misleading, as much of the advancement comes in the form of additional longevity measured in months, after a diagnosis. A new drug that prolongs a cancer patient’s life by a few months is deemed a success, by profit-hungry drug companies who pay doctors to prescribe particular drugs.

There are recurring areas of cancer research that are often cited as contributing to the dismal results. The first is that scientists are not recognized and rewarded for saving lives, per their research efforts. The rate of useful therapies per research discovery is very poor compared to other diseases. Cancer research has also stuck for too long with animal models that many people say are irrelevant to humans with cancer. The National Cancer Institute, a major research funder, is known for preferring ‘safe’ research, study that is more status quo and less innovative. The leading complaint is that private funders of research are focused on ‘home run’ solutions that can be patented and will deliver boatloads of money, rather than training their focus on something much more doable, but less profitable - preventing cancer from the outset.

The real tragedy of the war on cancer is that it effectively could have been won, if the objective of those involved was to simply save lives, rather than to profit from saving lives. The human immune system is evolved to keep cancer in check, if only it is kept healthy and strong to do the job. The problem with this approach is that no one gets rich from true prevention – people just go on with their lives. The cancer industry has substituted profit-making early detection and life-extending therapies, in exchange for a focus on nutrition and behaviors that would prevent up to 77% of all internal cancers (here). However, if the current industry took this better approach, ironically, we would have to start calling them the anti-cancer industry.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

If you believe noted scientist and science-fiction writer Issac Asimov, our bodies contain an estimated 50 trillion cells – 50 thousand billion! They live, duplicate themselves, and die in a very balanced process, covering the time from our birth to death. Inside each cell is a strand of DNA, our unique three-quarter gigabyte instruction set for how we are put together. Cell replication, the ultimate, is the process that gets the instructions from the old cells to the new, again and again, as we age, everyday.

Replacing trillions of cells each month, over decades, where each cell contains 3 billion base pairs, is a daunting task carried out with amazing efficiency and accuracy. Even so, cell replication produces predictable errors that would doom us all, with certainty, if it were not for built-in safeguards. When we die of cancer, it is not because we got it – it was always there - rather our internal evolutionary safeguards have failed, too often (but not always) due to some form of neglect or abuse, conveniently obscured from our view.

So the issue with cancer is not about getting it, but about accepting that it is already there and that we should pursue keeping it under control everyday of our lives. Each cell is pre-programmed to copy itself a certain number of times and then die. When a cell errantly exceeds its copy limit the body deems it cancerous, and a healthy immune system steps in to manually tell the cell to die. But what happens when our immunity is compromised by some deficiency? Cell replication spins out of control and cancer gains the upper-hand. Chemotherapy and radiation, crude man-made mimics of what a healthy immune system does with pin point accuracy, await us ready to spring into swash-buckling action, for profit.

Keeping our evolved internal safeguards working in original condition is not profitable. Letting our bodies fall into disrepair, so that this or that product/procedure can snatch us from the jaws of death (maybe) - now that is a way to make a butt-load of money! So let cancer be the bogeyman in the closet that everyone is too frightened to open and too distracted to thoughtfully consider. Let’s promise people a cure to get their pledges, their donations, and investments. Let’s wrap our quests for branded, proprietary, profit-laminated Nobel-prize winning solutions in pink ribbons, sappy optimism, and compromised scientific mumbo-jumbo. And let's do this while people die needlessly, expensively, and profitably. Cancer industry, indeed.

Monday, November 01, 2010

I do not worry about getting cancer. I have it. I have cancer in my colon. I have cancer in my prostate. I have cancer in my lungs. I have cancer in my bones. I have cancer in my entire body, from the day I was born, till now, and until the day I die. It is not a monster hiding in my closet, waiting to jump out and get me. It is a part of me that I no longer fear. I have it, yes, but it does not have me, by design or my action, and I live each day to keep it that way.

The idea that cancer is something I may get, and if it is detected in sufficient time (by some expensive gizmo) I might be saved, is nothing more than one of the greatest medical miscarriages ever perpetrated on modern humankind. The truth of this is magnified for Blacks, as the group suffers disproportionately from the disease. In this series I will talk about cancer and how we have been taught to view it to our health detriment, and for others to financially exploit.

This miscarriage, which has blossomed into the ‘cancer business’, was introduced to us with good intention wrapped in medical ignorance, but those intentions and ignorance have long since been replaced by greed. What drives this business is the lust for money, return on investment, or whatever the investor community wants to call it. The desire to profit from that thing which scares us the most, dying, is at the base of this trillion dollar economic engine. It is high time that we started calling it what it is, an industry. When I see pink buckets of KFC being sold in the alleged fight against cancer, I say enough already.

And I hate that word cured too. The public has been sold that cancer can be cured - it cannot - it can only be crudely stalled in particular situations, via crude procedures. Truly curing cancer, that is, ‘fixing’ cell replication processes to eliminate errors, is infinitely more difficult than curing the common cold, or malaria. The last time I checked, both of these ‘simpler’ maladies were still going strong, even while their cures would be worth zillions.

Just know, as I start down this road, I challenge the producers of the fight, not the actors. I have tremendous sympathy for those battling cancer, and also for those who are tools of this pretense of a good fight. However, I refuse to let people, who should know better, off the hook, just because some are clever enough to wrap their charade in a pink ribbon, colored wristband, or non-clever bucket of fried chicken. Stay tuned…

Thursday, October 28, 2010

The boy in the pictures is probably one of the most striking examples of a black person with blue eyes. I believe his name is Laren Galloway and I do not announce his identity lightly. While it is interesting to see how the lad is growing up, this is not what caught my interest. Rather, what jumped out at me instantly was that he has some form of growing lesion on the inside of his left eye, specifically in the area of his iris. This lesion needs to be examined medically ASAP, (of course I leave room that his parents are already on top of it).

Eye lesions are usually benign (non-cancerous) and remain so, but this is not always true, nor does it mean that they should ever be ignored. What is really key is that they are kept under routine watch by a medically qualified eye specialist. What that person will watch for are changes in shape and size, as indications of brewing problems. Laren’s lesion, barely visible in the first picture, has clearly increased in size, as he has aged.

I have no contact with his family to voice my concern. I do recall that he might live in Louisiana. If you know this boy’s family or parents, please contact them and express the concern I present here. His eye sight and greater health/well-being are at risk without proper medical care. If you know this boy, but do not feel comfortable approaching his parents, you may send me contact information and I will contact them. Thanks (in advance) for helping to make sure this boy is being cared for.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

This blog typically attempts to recognize and, at times, bluntly reconcile the fall of our once great society, viewed through the lens of race (ethnicity). In today’s post, however, I will look through the lens of health.

While eating a public breakfast on Sunday, with what seemed like a herd of obesity, it dawned on me that if fat is the choking underbrush of our society, then flat screens are the match sticks lighting it up in TV rooms across America. Overeating, sedentary living, and resulting obesity are the sure remedies to relieving our society of the social, economic, and environmental burdens of too many people, whose health cost now exceed what they pay for it (coverage). In crude respects, it can’t happen fast enough.

Before our health care system completely collapses, or in the wake of it actually going under, providers, with the help of employers and the government, will withdraw medical support for obesity complications. The system will reach a point where it has to simply let obese people die, in a least-cost manner. Companies that are reaping huge profits from providing products and services to treat obese people, and their expensive downstream results, are going to fall on hard times. Mark my words.

So, if your business services those with heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, vascular disease, cancer, or arthritis, do not get too comfortable with all that dough that is currently rolling your way, in the form of health insurance payments. Your endless riches, based upon today’s behavior and economy, are on their way out. And yes, some of you may call me a hard-hearted bastard, but really I am the opposite. I care about everyone, but I can only advocate for those who care for themselves.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

When I once said that most right-minded Americans (especially blacks) should be afraid of black males on some level, I caught a lot of grief from some folks (here). But saying it on my blog and in the context of black male violence statistics is not the same as saying it on Bill O’Reilly’s rag of a show. On my blog, I can create a context for my boldness to be understood, as well as challenged. Juan afforded his comments about Muslims no such opportunity and this is what got him rightly fired.

Saying that fellow passengers, dressed as Muslims, give you boarding concerns, because of 9/11, right in the middle context of the polarizing Bill O’Reilly Show, is a whole other kettle of fish. Juan was throwing rabid-dog O’Reilly a ‘profiling’ bone with some special meat on it, to keep the right-wing masses stoked and clamoring for Muslim blood. O’Reilly does not care what Williams might have meant, and Juan should act like he knows this, or stay off his damn side-show.

Williams has been playing with fire for a while, as a recurring ‘liberal’ guest of O’Reilly’s. In this case, he got burned trying to straddle the line between being liberal, and pitching fat, juicy softballs to Bill. In truth, NPR has probably been impatiently waiting for Juan to get both feet out of bounds at the same time. His appearances on the Fox show were not in alignment with the journalistic image NPR seeks to portray. Juan should have known this. Look for him full-time on Fox.

As for Muslims on aircraft, they have every right to the same treatment as all the other passengers – no more or less. They should neither be exempt from intrusion, nor should they be singled out because of the 9/11 extremists. Juan needs to act like he understands that he could very easily be on the receiving end of a profiling-gone-bad, wherein he would be screaming that authorities not assume things about him, not in evidence.

On the other hand, all Muslims must recognize, just as black males should, that behaviors of members of the group will inevitably show up in how they as individuals, in certain context, are perceived and received. Whenever I see some Timothy McVeigh-looking white dude with a glazed out-of-place look, I keep at least one eye on him. I'm not saying it's right, but he better understand.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The only problem was that the olive branch was stuffed into the barrel of a gun. Nice try Virginia (Thomas)! The gesture came as a private voice message from the wife of the Supreme Court Justice, who faced sexual misconduct scrutiny twenty years ago on allegations at his confirmation hearings by Anita Hill, his employee at an earlier time. Ginny suggested that Ms. Hill apologize and explain herself. Huh?

I knew that Clarence has been sucking on a twenty year old bitter pill, from Hill’s allegations, but that was some ‘peaceful gesture’ (her words) his wife cooked up. Thomas, the Justice, has called now professor Hill his most ‘traitorous adversary’, so it’s not hard to imagine that he was at least cognizant that honey-baked Virginia was of the mind to do something really stupid. Perhaps she just forgot to take her meds that day, but I doubt it.

Anyway, Hill contacted the FBI to authenticate the message, which they did. Thomas, the crazy wife, has attracted other attention of late, in founding “Liberty Central”, a non-profit activist group to challenge the ‘tyranny of Obama’ and financed by anonymous backers. A better name might be “Whack job Central”.

I have a fews suggestions for the Justice, of whom I am no fan, "declare victory, swallow that pill, and move on dude"!

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Different political factions within Germany would seem to be raising the bar on immigration, and I (for one) do not think this is a bad idea.

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel (pictured), stated recently that, ""Subsidising immigrants" isn't sufficient, Germany has the right to "make demands" on them, she added, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages." (here)

Alexander Dobrindt, of the conservative Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) added his group's flavor by saying, “The USA is an immigration country. Germany is not an immigration country. We have a culture that has grown over centuries.” (here)

I would disagree with Dobrindt that America can somehow 'afford' an immigration policy that is more costly than it is beneficial. A common language, English, should be required in the US, and religious and cultural practices that conflict with constitutional freedoms and responsibilities should not be allowed. Amnesty for illegal immigration should be considered after the needs of legal citizens are met, and when the immigrant offers a skill we actually need. Cheap service labor is a short-sighted reason for open immigration policy. Employers of illegal immigrants should pay fines commensurate with the real cost of extending the bevy of services to them, until such time where the 'alien' and their dependents becomes a citizen, or is deported. Anchor-baby schemes need to be halted.

In Germany, as in other parts of Europe, you can certainly find your racists if you look, but immigration policies that subscribe new arriver's to a minimum set of requirements aligned with local social evolution are not automatically guilty of such.

Diversity is neither an automatic weakness or strength, rather it is certainly dependent on sensible policies of assimilation and accommodation - something in short supply around the world.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

The University of Mississippi retired its plantation owner school mascot, replacing him with a bear. Is this political correctness gone wild, or a sensible response to the state's 40% Black population that found the slavery era character offensive?

Note: This is a follow-up to an earlier post on interracial dating via Match.com (here).

I have a single (recently divorced) Black male friend in his early fifties, who used match.com to find the woman who just broke off their three-month relationship. He claimed the relationship was the stated best each had ever experienced, on all levels, except that she is (additionally), how shall we say, White. Each stated no race preference in their match profiles.

After a bit of probing, he revealed that he wants a woman of color, perhaps even a Black woman, although his ex-wife of twenty years, and the mother of his kids, is Asian. As background, this guy is tall/slim, fair-skinned, highly educated, and a financial professional with a very refined demeanor. He has dated all ethnicities, including White.

Any ideas about what is going on here? From the woman's perspective (in this case) is Match.com asking the right questions?

Sunday, October 03, 2010

When witnessing a debate on reparations, I often feel like I’m listening to people speaking completely different languages. Consider that when unarmed Black Oakland BART rider Oscar Grant was killed by a White police officer on a train platform, Blacks demanded a first-degree murder charge, although it had little chance of being sustained (no malice aforethought). While the accusation made Blacks feel good for a minute, the illusion of fair play departed when the jury opted for a more accurate charge.

When Blacks argue for reparations, it does not mean that they know or care anything about an accurate application. What they care about is a means to take revenge, while getting compensated for the suffering of their relatives (the end). Of course, Whites (and some Blacks) try to explain that reparations do not apply, to a chorus of ‘I-don’t-give-a-bleep what a White man or Uncle Tom thinks’. It’s not about laws or evolving moral codes of the day – it’s about emotion and payback. We need to call it what it is.

Reparations debates will never be resolved until Blacks can inject some objectivity where only emotions currently exist. For their part, Whites will never be a part of the resolution until they can cop to how reasonable it is for Blacks to blame slavery, as the catch basin, for the litany of misdeeds that continued after slavery ended.

Hopefully the day will come when Blacks stop soliciting unfulfilling indulgences from Whites, when what they really want is for Whites to admit that their ancestors outsmarted themselves, not only by kidnapping Africans, but more so by not making Blacks equal opportunity citizens after the emancipation. Both Blacks and Whites need to work (together), minus race cards, at understanding how pretend equality (of opportunity), the sustained post-slavery sin, got us to the dysfunctional mess we find ourselves today. Only then can we start making decisions and taking action to reverse the damage.

Friday, October 01, 2010

In 1945, Vernon Baker rallied black troops after their white commander deserted. They captured a German stronghold in Italy, taking out three machine gun nests, two bunkers and an observation post. But he did not receive his award for more than half a century, and no black soldiers received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award for battlefield valor, during that era. An Army study initiated in the early 1990s concluded Baker and several other men had been denied the award because of racism. Baker and six other black World War II veterans received medals posthumously at a 1997 White House ceremony. He was the only Black WWII hero to receive his award while still alive.

Baker died July 13, 2010, St. Maries, Idaho. He was 90, and a genuine great American hero. Gone, but not forgotten.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

When it comes to discussing, or even thinking about, slavery, the great taboo of White folks is embodied in the question forever on their minds and almost never on their tongues, “Why are Blacks so ungrateful to be in America, when Africa is the worst place on the globe in terms of health, jobs, government, education, crime, climate, resources, blah, blah, blah?”

They will go on to say, “sure, slavery was bad for your ancestors, but it ended a long time ago”. They will also say that racism may exist, “but it exist in Africa too, and much worse, with one tribe committing genocide on another”. In the days before political correctness, Whites were fond of telling Blacks that they should go back to Africa, if they don’t like it here. The implication was always that however bad Blacks think America is, it is worse in Africa.

Where White people got off track is in thinking and acting like Blacks are immigrants. “Go home”, has always been the retort for the disgruntled immigrant, and some even made the return trip. But the African ancestry that was forced here is mostly like those people who stayed behind in Europe, China, India, etc. – meaning they are not immigrant-minded. So why did Black people stay here? Out of those that could have returned, they stayed mostly out of spite, and certainly not because anyone offered them a shot at the American Dream. This was the grand screw-up of US leadership before, during, and after the Civil War.

Fast-forward - if Black people could ever find a reason to want to be here, because of the relative opportunity, instead of being here to simply piss-off White people, a lot of the problems of the day would disappear. And ditto, if White people could ever accept responsibility for post-slavery abuse, without pretending to handover the keys to the kingdom, or other counter-productive acts of contrition.

The paradox is that Blacks cannot make Whites miserable about the past and what followed, without assuring their own adjacent misery, and Whites cannot make amends by only pretending to consider Blacks capable and deserving of a fair shot. So we are all miserable together down the crapper.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

I was stopped at a light while headed to work the other day when three high school-aged Black girls stood at the light waiting to cross. I was a few cars back, but noticed that the girls were talking loud. This loudness was very familiar to me, as it was similar to what I experienced visiting the local high school last year. It is also the same decibel level I witness with young ‘urban’ Black girls on BART trains. It is nothing like what I experience with my own daughter. As a note, Black boys can also be loud as well, but I have found that boys/men of all colors/ages tend to regulate themselves based upon the threat their behavior might bring from nearby males. This seems not to be the case with Black females.

As a point of clarification, it is not lost on me that many ethnicities are louder than run-of-the-mill White or Asian folks. I have come to believe this is due to a polychronic communication dynamic that has group members competing simultaneously, via loudness, with each other for conversational air time. But I suspected that this Black girl/Black women loudness thing was somehow a bit more. It felt like these young ladies were purposefully raising the volume because of their surroundings.

Well I was right, and there is quite a bit of literature on the subject (here), much of it by Black social scientists. It seems that loudness is a mechanism of defense, as well as aggression, and just plain making sure that people do not take you for granted. Unfortunately the loudness comes with consequences as well, like the label of intimidating and unattractive.

I confirmed these assertions with a Black female co-worker, who described Black girl loudness as a way of putting everyone within hearing distance on notice that the speaker is not to be ‘messed with’. I am interested if her assessment fits with the perceptions of other Black women, and men as well.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Continuing my pandering to Blue-eyed madness, I am compelled to write about idiots/people who pay big money to have blue implants surgically inserted into their eyes. Yep, you heard me, inserted as in carved! I first thought that this could not be true, but after various aging relatives had lenses implanted to remedy cataracts, I thought I better do some homework.

The procedure for quasi-permanently changing the color of one’s eyes involves implanting a colored, optic-neutral, lens behind the cornea and in front of the iris. Knowing a bit about how the eye works (don’t ask how), the first thing I wondered was how this implanted lens would not irritate either the cornea or iris while being held in place to give the owner those factory-fresh baby-blues? It is this potential to obstruct these two parts of the eye that would contribute to damage and the body’s immune response, all resulting in complications of a blinding nature.

The implants, commercially labeled NewColorIris™, are available from a Panamanian eye surgeon, Delray Alberto Khan. It is critical to note that the Khan (ironically pronounced “Con”) cosmetic procedure is not approved anywhere outside of the third-world (where it seems authorities do not care if doctors butcher patients). It also seems that Khan’s patients/victims are fond of having those damn things removed pronto, in an attempt to save their sight. I found one patient who seemed to be happy, for now (here).

Interestingly enough, there is an eye surgeon in Beverly Hills, Kerry K. Assil, who repairs and replaces damaged or congenitally missing (here) irises, presented as medical conditions. Assil’s implants, while potentially changing eye color, also reveal themselves, by not obscuring the entire original iris. However, Dr. Assil’s location in Beverly Hills, is suspicious, as 90210 is also the mecca of the cosmetic surgery industry. It would not surprise me if Assil was padding his account by making blue eyes bluer, on the QT, but this is only conjecture right now.

Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

Note: A Blue-eyed fellow like the one in the picture had his NewColorIris(tm) implants removed due to complications, and removal only cost him $16,000! (here)

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

It is a recurring theme within American Black culture that White people owe a special debt to Blacks because of slavery. Certain conservatives try to short-circuit this claim by arguing that slavery was not profitable, but even if profitability was arguable (and it is not), some will still claim it as a theft of service. However, since slavery has always been with humanity, we will need to carefully establish the point, exactly, when it became theft, and worthy of damages.

Nowhere in the bible is it written that slavery is an abomination unto the Lord, or anybody else. There is no commandment against it. People were not stoned or crucified for practicing it, unlike stealing, killing, adultery, blasphemy, and a list of other prescribed avoidances. In fact, the bible and the Koran, the two most enduring rulebooks of history, and the basis of our rules of law, make nary a mention of slavery as anything more than an everyday part of life.

Did the tribal rulers of Africa think they were stealing the lives of rival Africans when they captured and traded them to Europeans for gunpowder/weapons, utensils and foodstuffs? I think not. Many Africans might argue that they were actually sparing the lives of their kindred enemies by shipping them off, as the alternative was to simply kill them. So it would seem that slavery broke neither laws nor moral codes, a continent away or here, until those practicing it changed their minds about it. This is no different than our current hot-button items of abortion, or same sex marriage. All is allowed until strictly forbidden.

People who argue for repayment nearly always cite reparations paid to indigenous Americans, Japanese internees, and WWII era Jews, but in those cases (here, here, here), laws (treaties) on the books were expressly broken. It seems that the acts of elevating the Atlantic Slave Trade, and slavery in America, to a cut above all other slavery invokes some special status where societal advancement no longer adheres to linearity. The sooner a proper perspective is in place, the better off we will all be.

Finally, perspective is not an invitation to insult and cruelty - slavery did happen and its association with a struggling group is undeniable. Nearly forty years ago a White high school classmate, Paul Ivancie, stated to me, unapologetically, how cool it would be to have a slave. His stupidity brought me face-to-face with the love/hate conundrum Blacks face in this country. There are still Antebellum Whites like him out there - I just hope that when my kids meet such people those words will roll off their backs better than mine.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Note: There are many who say that the economics of slavery were not very profitable, Thomas Sowell notably, and I would say they are wrong. However, it is important to distinguish (as I will attempt) between plantation slavery economics and the greater commerce value/impact of the triangular trade.

There are two high schools (Part 1 today), and one graduate school (Part 2 coming), of thought on the degree to which this country owes its fortunes to slavery, and by inference to Black ancestry. It is this notion of who benefited and who is owed, intertwined with current dysfunction, which sits as a big bugaboo to progress.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was a profitable component of triangular commerce of that day, but by itself not world changing. In fact, slavery has often been the spoil of a society that was good at something else, mainly war. Having other people to do your loathsome work has been a luxury for the already rich. The Atlantic Slave Trade was a final burst where pure labor was of pivotal importance to a more sophisticated system of commerce, mostly involving sugar and Europe’s sweet tooth for its by-products.

In the labor-starved Americas, slavery is what made the triangular system happen, on the front end. Thereby, it deserves a disproportion of the credit for the very profitable distilled-spirits and textiles on the back end. On the other hand, while plantation slavery made those owners rich, those same owners were not directly responsible for this country’s economic fortune. The overhead required to administer slaves within a system of zero incentive, was high. As a sidebar, had slaves been able to work in parallel to purchase their freedom, the US might have avoided a devastating war with itself.

The Wall Street banks and insurance companies in the north were a different story than the plantations. The slave trade business gave this country a critical foundation in establishing the commerce and banking infrastructure that world leadership would require. The names of those companies and their impact are undeniable – JP Morgan, Chase, Lehman Bros., Aetna, New York Life, to name a few.

So, in answer to whether slavery was profitable, the answer is both no and yes, but much more yes – as it was the lubricant for the most profitable European commerce transactions of the day. This is true even though American plantations were inefficient in their brutal waste and high overhead cost.

Up Next: Part 2 (Graduate School). Just because slavery was profitable does not mean that slaves, or their ancestors, have a rightful claim. The details and context of the day, both legal and ethical, must be applied.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Members of the Civil Rights community in general, and familiar Blacks in particularly, are reeling on their heels from the revelation that noted civil rights photographer Ernest Withers, who died in 2007 at the age of 85, doubled as an informant to the FBI against the Civil Rights Movement, and its assassinated leader, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

A Memphis Tennessee newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, broke the story on September 12, after researching evidence that indicated Withers collaborated with the FBI, including J. Edgar Hoover, for years. It was an FBI error in redacting information on informants that led the paper to Withers’ identity and the information he provided the government about the inner-workings of the movement, all in exchange for money.

Now, some will want to paint Withers as a patriot, but all I see at this moment is a betrayer. No amount of good that his photography did will ever undo the damage then and now, of now knowing he worked for people who actively sought to deny citizen rights to a whole group of people, his people. Withers was invited into confidential and private meetings, because people trusted him and believed the record of those events to be important.

This is a sad revelation, which only deepens the stains of progress, through all of the kicking and screaming.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Considering that most Americans cannot name all fifty states, or find S. Dakota on a map, it would not surprise me at all that those same folks think that slavery was invented, or re-invented, in the colonies now making up these United States. Unfortunately, what most Americans know of slavery was passed down from people who saw Alex Hailey’s fictionalized Roots mini-series. There is much more to slavery than this, as it has been going on for thousands of years.

Slavery began when hunter-gathering ended, some say about 11,000 years ago. Once agriculture advances produced more food than people in certain areas could eat, people began enslaving others, as they could afford to keep their captives fed. Before that, they simply killed their enemies without a blink. To help our perspective, during the 1,000 or so years of the Roman Empire, 100 million people in an around the Mediterranean area were enslaved.

The lives of slaves have rarely been ‘good’, as some would describe. Throughout time, slaves have been property not people. Their treatment, and very existence, has always been at the whim of their owners. This means they could be killed, assaulted, neglected, or simply worked to death, without repercussions. In most cases slave women bore offspring into slavery, both replenishing and growing the ranks.

Slavery has always been profitable and the foundation of commerce for all societies. Slavery commerce was often the aim/outcome of going to war, where entire societies were enslaved and sold as spoils. It is estimated that 25 to 50% of the world’s population has been enslaved at some time in history. So, the millions of slaves captured and delivered during the Atlantic Slave Trade hold no distinction other than the distance they were transported, and timing with the moral question of acceptability.

The taboo nature of slavery history has fostered a level of ignorance, all the way around, that hinders placing it in proper perspective.

Friday, September 10, 2010

I heard about this South African device during the FIFA World Cup, this past summer. Some people are quick to point out that the device does not actually prevent rape, rather it ‘shreds’ the penis of the attacker, creating a disincentive. Most of the articles I have read are simply reprints of the inventors’ press release, but the discussion (here) presents a better debate of the issues and context. It is important to note that rape and HIV infections in S. Africa are rampant, and the highest in the world.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for actingwhite.com

The privacy of our visitors to actingwhite.com (acting black) is important to us.

At actingwhite.com, we recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. Here is information on what types of personal information we receive and collect when you use and visit actingwhite.com, and how we safeguard your information. We never sell your personal information to third parties.

Log FilesAs with most other websites, we collect and use the data contained in log files. The information in the log files include your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL or Shaw Cable), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.

Cookies and Web BeaconsWe do use cookies to store information, such as your personal preferences when you visit our site. This could include only showing you a popup once in your visit, or the ability to login to some of our features, such as forums.

We also use third party advertisements on actingwhite.com to support our site. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing New York real estate ads to someone in New York, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).

You can chose to disable or selectively turn off our cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.